Matthias was chosen by lot to replace Judas (Acts 1.15-26). The use of “lots” to discern the will of God was an ancient practice – see for example the numerous references to the Urim and Thummim in the Old Testament; and not exclusive to Judaism or early Christianity.

What is interesting in the narrative of Matthias’ selection are Peter’s comments about the process. First candidates are selected and “offered” by the community – these men were to have been a part of the mission and ministry from the beginning “from the baptism of John until the day on which he [Christ] was taken up from us” (Acts 1.22). These individuals were to become a living witness of christ’s resurrection (and presumably the teaching that explained or justified his death and resurrection) – thus they could speak with authority, teach with confidence, and be trusted by all because of their having “been there” from the beginning. The community chose their candidates: Barsabbas, and Matthias.

Peter then prayed: “You, Lord who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen” (Acts 1.24). Barsabbas and Matthias were given lots and the “lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven” (Acts 1.26).

“God and Man together” – this is an ancient axiom which underpins so much of our theology. Without it we would suffer from fatalism, and the heresy of pre-destination – “free will” would be meaningless, and praxis both of spiritual disciplines aimed at realising theosis, and the living out of the teachings of Christ would be carried out in vain.

The selection of Matthias is both an example of the “process” of human and divine cooperation – of discernment. It is also an approach to choosing candidates for office in our communities that is well worth considering in our indie context – where too many are ordained and consecrated with only the first half of the process (man) and not the second (divine action/inspiration) having been considered.

The ecumenical councils are thought to express the will of the Spirit because of the unanimity of the council – having debated (fought) over the points at hand for days even weeks until arriving at a concensus. The Copts until the 1950s chose (I’m not sure if they still do) the Patriarch by lot from selected candidates. The early custom of “mob ordination” where the congregation sets upon a candidate spontaneously is another example of this process in action. Thus, it is not unreasonable for us to expect that the normal practice in our commiunities ought to embody this ideal of discernment, process, and “God and Man together”.